I have read a number of articles on "debunking" that statement, but they always have large holes.
This one in particular attacks what it considers consistency. It suggests that we cannot be sure that the data that is collected will consistently used accurately. It suggests that having ones fingerprints on file were the cause of a number of false arrests.
While I agree that if we collected no data, we'd probably have less false arrests, they convinently avoid talking about how many people have been correctly (as far as we can tell) convicted because of that data.
I'm not saying this has anything to do with the whole car article- I'm just saying that if someone is swayed either way by that simple computer weekly article, they haven't really thought the issue through themselves.
